Discussion All Areas Of Systematic Theology

What was the first heaven and earth passed away in Rev. 21?

Everyone,

Please share your view what does this mean ("heaven" and "earth")? Also what about "no more sea"?

From Gen. 1-3?

The Mosaic covenant?

Something else?

This is only for the full preterist view and it should be interesting.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ken Singleton on February 10, 2012 at 4:08am

Hi Taffy,

1) The knowledge we are now discovering is not erroneous Taffy, it is all true (probably), but it is not relevant because they did not have this knowledge so they could not factor it in. Whenever Genesis was written and whoever wrote it, wrote "as if" Adam was the first created human. God used the knowledge they had, not the knowledge that we now have. Trying to make the text say something other than that is to impose knowledge upon it that the writers did not have.

2) The text says nothing about "character" - that is only a necessary addition to make your scenario fit. On the contrary Adam says,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
(Genesis 2:23 ESV)

This all sounds very "physical" to me!

3) I agree that Adam was the "first" man to bear God's image, because he was the first "created man" according to the Biblical text. The text does not say that Adam is the first "chosen" man from amongst many. That scenario is not in the text - it is imposed upon the text to make your system fit. The image of God is what distinguished man from the rest of the creatures created from the dust - it is why God brought the animals to Adam, so that Adam could discover, under God's guiding hand, that he was different from all the animals and so needed a suitable helper which he could not obtain from the animals.

Regards, Ken

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Taffy on February 10, 2012 at 5:18am

Hi Ken, you said, "Whenever Genesis was written and whoever wrote it, wrote "as if" Adam was the first created human." I disagree.

It's likely that the Gen 1-3 account was written shortly after the events recorded in them. (Some even argue Adam was the author.) Given that Eden was located in an area of the world long inhabited by humans (see here), its very unlikely the author wrote it believing Adam was the first "created" human being.

How about this as a possibility: The author was "inspired" (2 Tim 3:16) to write of the "beginning" of the biblical era in a similar way to how John was at its "end"? Using real cosmological features (stars, sun, moon, animals, etc) to 'symbolically' describe real people and real events? Given that 'symbolism' of this nature was already common in that era (consider things like etchings on ancient pillars and the later 'Epic of Gilgamesh'), this seems feasible.

The 'symbolism' used for Eve was indeed "very physical". By bearing YHWH's "image" Adam became the visible manifestation of the "invisible" God, so did she (Gen 1:27). A physical description was most apt.

A comment if I may on your use of the word "created". The author of Gen 2 used the word, yatsar ("formed"/"fashioned"), in relation to Adam (Gen 2:6). And the author of Gen 1 used bara' in both Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:26. This is translated in YLT as "prepared", NOT "created" as in being zapped into existence out of nothing (which is what most 'christians' have in mind when they read that word.). I don't believe it was used in that way.

Do you believe the author(s) who wrote of the Gen 1-3 events shortly after they occurred (ordinary folk who just like you and I had heard stories from their grandparents about times in their own grandparents days, and them of theirs, etc), believed the "heavens and earth" they spoke of referred to EVERYTHING popping into existence a short time ago? What then of the stories of their forbears? Were they making such things up?

Or did those author(s) write those passages knowing they were some kind of 'picture story'? Tales of men rising out of the earth; of a fully grown woman coming out of him; of a serpent talking, etc, pictured 'symbolically' to convey the message of God? (Consider the 'picture stories' on Sumerian 'Cylinder Seals' of that time.)

And what of old artefacts undoubtedly left behind as trade currency by travellers to their communities from other parts of the continent? Did this also lead them to believe Adam was the first homo sapien? Or what of stories they may have heard from merchants about ancient Temple Site's; like the 12,000 year old site at Gobekli Tepe (which wasn't that far from the Fertile Crescent)?

I believe the people in Adam's day (the Copper Age) were far more advanced and had much more knowledge than many give them credit for.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Singleton on February 10, 2012 at 6:32am

Hi Taffy,

The time of the writing of Gen 1-3 is up for grabs so trying to build a doctrine upon it is dubious I think. Pete Enns, for example, reckons that the scholarly opinion is that the Pentateuch (including Genesis) was at least redacted during the Babylonian exile or maybe post-exile, and possibly draws upon the Gilgamesh and Atrahasis myths as a polemic to define who Israel was post-exile.

Is Genesis 1-11 even actual history? Some Biblical scholars argue that it isn't. So it seems to me that knowing exactly who wrote it and the time of its writing is less important than the content of the writing. What is the message that it contains.

The other thing to bear in mind is that there are 1189 chapters in the Bible and of those only 11 speak about the time prior to Abraham - surely this must mean something in terms of the importance of the material. The Bible is about Israel, not Adam. The 11 chapters prior to Abraham seem to me to be more about "context setting", establishing who Israel's God is, the problem of law, sin and death, and the nations who Israel would interact with.

In respect to your "possibility" I think it is more natural to read it the other way round, that John used Genesis to describe who Jesus was, the Word that brought the creation into existence.That creative word became flesh and dwelt as an Israelite on earth. The creator of the physical creation is also the creator of the new creation.

I am happy with "fashioned" - it is what Adam was fashioned out of that is significant - dust. The picture is of God as a potter gathering the dust into clay and fashioning a man out of it, into which he breathes life. I agree that it wasn't out of nothing.

Yes, I think the Israelites probably believed that God created everything just as their scriptures state - why would they not? There was nothing that I can see that would lead them to believe otherwise. (I of course do not believe God created everything 6000 years ago, however - I think the evolutionary scenario is probably correct, at least to some degree).

It's possible they thought of it as a "picture story", I suppose, but I don't think that is supported in Scripture. As I read it, it seems to me they believed God flung stars into space and stretched out the heavens etc. and they got that from their Genesis account. That they then went on to use aspects of the physical creation as metaphors for other things (even people at times) is without question, but to my mind at least, it is fairly obvious from the context when they are doing this.

Like I have already stated, the knowledge that we have now is not the knowledge that the Israelites had. Did they know of Gobekli Tepe and it's antiquity? I doubt it. Did they know of the many Ice ages? I doubt it. Were they concerned about that kind of thing? I doubt it.

Hope this clarifies where I am at this moment in my own journey of understanding.

Regards, Ken

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Taffy on February 10, 2012 at 7:25am

Hi Ken. Thanks for clarifying your position. It seems like your current view rests heavily on a 'late' Gen 1-3 authorship with the text being modified to draw upon certain "myths", mine on an 'early' one with the original text undergoing no modifications.

You said, "The other thing to bear in mind is that there are 1189 chapters in the Bible and of those only 11 speak about the time prior to Abraham - surely this must mean something in terms of the importance of the material." Agreed.

The first eleven chapters covered 50% of the ENTIRE biblical era (i.e. 2,000 years) and laid the "foundation" of the "world" that would come and what would later ensue. There was no need for the "generations"/"histories" of EVERY adamic nation to be recorded, only one of them. The Bible is about Adam, and his "generations" (Gen 5:1), which includes God's "servant" Israel (Lev 25:55), through who the "Saviour" was born (Lk 2:11), and to whom the "ministry of reconciliation" was committed (2 Cor 5:18-19).

"The 11 chapters prior to Abraham" were indeed about "context setting". Amongst other things they "established who Israel's God" was. That was crucial because there was need to establish a link between them and the God who made the original promise of a "Seed" to the Common Ancestor of ALL adamic "nations" (Gen 3:15, Gal 3:16, Ac 17:26-28). Without that "Seed" NONE of God's PEOPLE could have been "saved" (Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Sarah, etc; see Heb 11).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Singleton on February 10, 2012 at 7:43am

Taffy,

This: "...your current view rests heavily on a 'late' Gen 1-3 authorship with the text being modified to draw upon certain "myths"..." is not my view - it is an example of others views.

This: "The time of the writing of Gen 1-3 is up for grabs so trying to build a doctrine upon it is dubious...who wrote it and the time of its writing is less important than the content of the writing" is my view.

Regards, Ken

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Taffy on February 10, 2012 at 7:50am

Hi Ken, ok, thanks for that. IMO my current view is consistent with both biblical and extra-biblical sources. But I'm happy for you to disagree.

Take care, Taffy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Donald on February 10, 2012 at 7:57am

Taffy and Ken,

I do not believe that Adam was the first human created but I think he was the first covenant man (Hos. 6:7) within the Promised Land/Heaven and Earth.

Yes, the Bible is about Adam and his "generations" (the covenant world) which narrow down to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and finally the 12 tribes of Israel. They were the fathers of many "nations" (Gen. 17:4; 26:3-4; 35:9-11). The new covenant/new Heaven and Earth was for them (Jer. 31:31-34), not for other "Adamic"/non-Adamic nations.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Taffy on February 10, 2012 at 8:04am

Hi Don, the "new creation" was about "restoring" the "old". That meant Adam and ALL those "IN" him; i.e. ALL those of "faith" who came from his loins; Abel, Noah, etc, etc..... (I thought you'd moved on to accept that truth?)

If you've moved backwards and are confident about your last statement, would you like me to start a new thread for you to answer all my questions about the "Israel Only Error"?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Donald on February 10, 2012 at 8:18am

Taffy,

We may have to disagree in a few areas at this time. I already deal with this in http://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/forum/topics/the-chosen-race and http://fulfilledtheology.ning.com/forum/topics/the-covenant-world.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Taffy on February 10, 2012 at 9:36am

No worries Don. But when I get a chance I'll upload a new thread on the 'Israel Only' view so that any interested reader can consider for themselves whether my questions/concerns are valid or not.

Let me add this now if I may:

There were simple, common-sense reasons 'why' IT WAS PRACTICAL for only one of Adam's lineages to inherit the "rule" of the "land" after him and for all "uncleanness" to be banished from it (see my other threads).

Just as there were simple, common-sense reasons 'why' IT WAS NECESSARY for his lineages to be "narrowed down" to one for the bringing of God's Christ "into the world" (Jn 3:17). [ In the event it took 2,000 years for that "narrowing down" to be finalised! ] Let me illustrate 'why' IT WAS NECESSARY with a little quiz. Don,

1/ How many "seed(s)" were promised to Adam in Gen 3:15? Was it, a/ 10, b/ 50, c/ 1,000, d/ "one", or, e/ None of the above?

2/ Many men ("seeds") can come "into the world" through many lineages, right? But how many lineages does it take to bring "one Man"/"Seed" "into the world" (Rom, 5:15)? Is it, a/ 10, b/ 50, c/ 1,000, d/ "one", or, e/ None of the above?